4.8 Article

Deep learning of circulating tumour cells

Journal

NATURE MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 124-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42256-020-0153-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EUFP7 programme [305341 CTCTrap]
  2. IMI EU programme [115749 CANCER-ID]
  3. EU-H2020 project NoMADS [777826]
  4. SACAMIR project of TKI Life Science Health
  5. NWO Applied and Engineering Sciences project Cancer-ID [14190]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) found in the blood of cancer patients are a promising biomarker in precision medicine. However, their use is currently hindered by their low frequency, tedious manual scoring and extensive cell heterogeneities. Those challenges limit the effectiveness of classical machine-learning methods for automated CTC analysis. Here, we combine autoencoding convolutional neural networks with advanced visualization techniques. This provides a very informative view on the data that opens the way for new biomedical research questions. We unravel hidden information in the raw image data of fluorescent images of blood samples enriched for CTCs. Our network classifies fluorescent images of single cells in five different classes with an accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of over 96%, and the obtained CTC counts predict the overall survival of cancer patients as well as state-of-the-art manual counts. Moreover, our network excelled in identifying different important subclasses of objects. Deep learning was faster and superior to classical image analysis approaches and enabled the identification of new biological phenomena. Counting different types of circulating tumour cells can give valuable information on the severity of the disease and on whether treatments are effective for a specific patient. In this work, the authors show that their method based on autoencoders can identify and count cells more accurately and faster than human experts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available